People Republic of California to Force Homosexual Indoctrination = Sodom

Group wants Schwarzenegger to know that parents oppose 'indoctrination' plans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 16, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A California child-protection organization is lobbying state residents to call and tell Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of their concerns about two bills that have been approved by a pro-gay legislature and are awaiting the governor's decision to approve or veto.

"To be silent when 6.5 million California schoolchildren are threatened with sexual indoctrination is tantamount to being an accomplice to a crime," said a statement from the California Childrens Campaign.

Officials with the organization, which has lobbied, held rallies and raised support for a pro-family plan in the state, said a new poll noted only 15 percent of Californians vote.

"This means 15 percent of Californians control the government, and the other 85 percent are willing to accept anything the government does to them and their family. This is no way to get a good government – especially when pro-family Californians are much, much more than 15 percent of the population!"

The two bills remaining on the governor's desk are AB606 and AB1056 and "he's on the edge about them. The proof is his Sacramento phone recording currently asks your opinion on both these horrible bills," the CCF said.

The first proposal would authorize the California Superintendent of Public Instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any school district that did not adequately promote the state "model policy" on transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality.

AB1056 would spend $250,000 to mandate "tolerance education" by promoting those alternative sexual lifestyle choices.

The governor earlier signed SB1441 which requires any school or facility that gets state funding, even if it's indirectly through a student's state grant or scholarship, to promote those alternative choices.

"People of conscience are appalled that Arnold Schwarzenegger has trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists," Randy Thomasson, chief of the CCF, said at the time.

The plan will force religious colleges either to abandon their Biblical standards on sexuality or reject students with state aid, he said.

One that the governor did veto was SB1437, which would have banned any textbook, instructional material or school-sponsored activity from "reflecting adversely" on the state's sexual smorgasbord.

"Time is running out," said the CCF. "Governor Schwarzenegger has a Sept. 30 deadline to sign or veto bills."

Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, said the bills "deserve his veto."

One day they will realize that Jesus is the ONLY way.

How to escape doomsday scenario

If the Jews would have resources to alert the world to the dangers, the world at large would be saved from horrible consequences
Yitzhak Shomron

Not a few questions loom large on the Mideast crisis. And there comes a moment when we have to start sacrificing one more holy cow: The idea that Israel doesn't want, need or will ever request external help without relying on its own people, soldiers and military might.

The fact is, we have no answers for doomsdays scenarios that are listed here in a random manner:

1. How do we confront the new, Jihadist spirit of Arab countries that harbor terrorism? It is a new kind of war which harbors death wishes as an instrument of fighting. No war ever took that as a principle which denies the possibility of capture and surrender.

2. Where are the guarantees that both in the West bank and Gaza we may not confront the kind of developing strategies, which included secret expanding of primitive factories to manufacture various kinds of missiles and conventional arms. A surprise on this possibility is forbidden to occur in our ranks, but who knows?

3. Are our strategic deployments of military planning sufficient to new threats? What is the answer to the possibility that the whole of Israel, including air and sea, will be covered by primitive but highly efficient fire from the neighboring parts of Israel?

4. What happens if even parts of that doomsday scenario come into effect? Where will the population escape from the dangers? Will the able and affluent run out by sea, because no part will be safe from the kind of total onslaught that can be imagined?

5. And yes, we may face the frenzy expanding to Iran as a leading force, which calculates unimaginable plans. Didn't the case of Gadhafi, who suddenly surprised the world with stages of producing nuclear power, serve as a reminder that everything is possible in the Middle East?

6. What will actually happen to our stance in the democratic countries when a total breakdown of rule and economic activity produces horrendous results in the population? The same must be asked about the West bank.

We have to face those questions and others by assuming and trying to make the world aware of the new reality.

Universal fight against Muslim fanaticism

And this reality is obvious: Israel is perceived as an outpost of the Western world. The collective mind of millions and millions of Muslims will again make traditional use of the mobs and put us on center stage by zeroing-in on Israel as a first stage of the confrontation with the West.

We have learned that the terrorists worldwide, even if not through conspiratorial methods, find a way to till the soil of disconnected and concentrated efforts on one front, while having in mind grander strategies of destruction.

All this shows that we may have to discard the wonderful idea that Israel can take care of itself and it will not ask for external forces to help in the fight for its existence.

The real situation must be demonstrated logically everywhere: Israel is part of a world which is situated in the throes of real jeopardy, and so it needs the readiness of the world not only to defend itself ,but also to coordinate the universal fight against Muslim fanaticism.

In this vein, for example, we may point out that Israel in the last years is hampered by the difficulties of intelligence gathering through its ties with the United States and Europe.

Israel alone cannot serve as testing field

And there is no worldwide awareness that the new generations in the Arab world are not just experiencing an encounter with Israel, but are part of a dynamic ongoing process: the scene of onslaught changes, passes from hand to hand, so to say, the form of political and military encounter changes shape, but the aim, which is implanted in the minds of rulers and whole populations, does not.

The need then emerges to implant the awareness in the West that Israel alone cannot serve as the testing field of the new kind of warfare. Ways have to be found to influence the leaders and public opinion in this direction.

And it can be pointed out clearly that not only does Europe, and in part the US, have an obligation not to risk a Jewish state, after the Holocaust, but also the following injunction :

Please, remember that with Hitler it all started with the Jews, but if the Jews would have the resources to alert the world to the dangers, not only they, the Jews, would be saved from horrible consequences, but the world at large!

Are we in denial?

Are we in denial?
By Diana West
Published September 8, 2006

When President Bush offered his detailed account of successes in extracting information from captured al Qaeda terrorists -- information that thwarted numerous attacks at home and abroad -- he was compelling in his defense of the CIA's role in this crucial aspect of the war.
But if his revelations were breathtaking -- and politically bullet-proof against Democrats fire -- they were also slightly troubling in that these are the kind of intelligence details that usually come out after a war is over.
Listening to the president publicly discuss such information -- which jihadi told what about whom, and how Abu So-and-so didn't realize how little we knew before he started talking, and how plots were thwarted in what sounded like the nick of time -- I got the feeling it wasn't as important for the public to know all this as for the president to say all this in hopes of garnering support for vital new legislation authorizing military tribunals for jihad-killers. That is, if the president felt forced to tip an intelligence hand, it indicates how grudging political support for fighting the so-called war on terror has become: We need nitty-gritty details to go forward, not just a robust survival instinct. This underscores the extent to which the war has become ambiguous or inconceivable in the public imagination -- which is exactly where such a long war must be won.
But why should it be murky? Five years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, World War II was over, Japan and Germany vanquished. Five years after September 11, we still speculate as to who, or what, our enemy is. We have had a brief fling with "Islamic fascism" -- a phrase that, in its 20th-century-European political connotations, is misleading about jihad's 1300-year-old religious roots. But now, in the president's just-released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," we're back to plain vanilla "extremist ideology." We seem to find a generic comfort in being vague.
Not me -- as even the occasional reader of this column likely knows. The "who" are Muslim jihadists; the "what" is Muslim jihad. There is violent jihad (terrorism), and there is "quiet jihad," the peaceful consequence of the demographic shift of Muslims into the West. Both, however, result in Islamization -- the spread of Islamic law. This is a dire threat to what could have once upon a time been summed up by the word "us."
But there are others -- even conservatives such as the Wall Street Journal's John Fund and National Review editor Rich Lowry -- who dismiss the notion of naming the enemy. As Mr. Lowry recently wrote online, "I hate to say it, but I don't think it's too important what we call our enemy. Yes, 'the war on terror' is flawed, but everyone knows what we're talking about...My view is the whole naming debate is "much ado," and although it's very interesting, its contribution to actually winning this war will be nil."
Maybe that depends on the definition of "winning." And who's "everyone," anyway? And is there agreement on what constitutes an "enemy"? Notice how, in a reporter's summation of a recent presidential speech on the terrorist enemy, the Washington Post saw fit to set off the word "evil" with a pair of quotation marks: "In his speech," the reporter wrote, "Bush said terrorist leaders' statements have made plain their goals, which he called the present-day equivalent of the 'evil' aims of Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler."
Maybe this just goes to show that one man's Hitler is another man's Fuehrer. But being vague about the enemy and non-judgmental about evil is not what we should be five years after September 11.
This brings us to the one small bright spot to mark off the anniversary week of September 11 -- an anniversary blackened by the decision to allow Mohammed Khatami, former president of Iran, the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism, into the United States. Mr. Khatami, who supports Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, will be speaking on the eve of September 11 at Harvard on -- get this -- "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence." Bring your own air-sickness bag.
But here's that bright spot: Denouncing the Khatami visit, GOP Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts ordered state agencies to refuse to provide assistance during the Khatami visit -- which means no pomp and motorcade for the Iranian stooge. As Mr. Romney put it, "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel." How simple, how true.
Five years later, somebody gets it.

United in Jesus We Stand - Divided We Fall

Democratic Party Leadership, al Qaeda Have Similar Media Messages


By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Sep 12—KIN--As President George W. Bush addressed the nation on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on America by the nation of Islam, it became evident that the United States may also be under assault by the Democratic Party with a message strikingly similar to the media propaganda employed by the terrorists.

One of the primary strategies of the terrorists, as sponsored by Iran and include al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others, is to utilize the news media to cast constant doubt on the motives and results of fighting the war on terror. And it seems that the U.S. Democratic Party leadership, who believes the war should be fought using an international police force, has swallowed the terrorists’ line bait, hook and sinker. For example, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy said, "The President should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had "nothing" to do with 9/11."

Last week, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean sounded like an al Qaeda propagandist warning America that she is not safe and Republicans are at fault. Dean said, "You can't trust Republicans to defend America. Today we only heard more of the same propaganda from a desperate Bush Administration worried more about its party's political prospects this fall than about how to protect America and fight and win the real war on terror… Iraq is sliding into civil war. Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than they were before Bush took office. The Taliban is coming back to Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Yet, Republicans refuse to live up to their responsibility for the fact that under their watch, America is less safe at home and around the world.”

The Democratic National Committee website touts a poll that says, ““fully one-third of Americans think the terrorists may be winning," and Americans fear that the war in Iraq is hampering our ability to fight the war on terror and that al-Qaeda kingpin Osama bin Laden will never be caught.” President Bush maintains that the war in Iraq is the front for the war on terrorism. There have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, but there have been many threats by al Qaeda and others that America is not safe—pretty much the same line the Democratic Party has been touting to the news media.

This begs the question as to whether the Democratic Party is a shill for al Qaeda. Probably not, but both al Qaeda and the Democrats have one thing in common—they want the Republicans out of office and they are trying to use a lazy, easily manipulated liberal news media to break down the will of the American people to fight for their very survival against an evil enemy. The Apostle Paul said of the latter days in II Timothy 3:13, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” And Jesus Christ warned in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to give us discernment and wisdom for times such as these.

TERRORISM: 'AL-QAEDA'S MR. NUCLEAR TO HEAD FRESH ATTACK ON U.S.'

TERRORISM: 'AL-QAEDA'S MR. NUCLEAR TO HEAD FRESH ATTACK ON U.S.'

Dubai, 12 Sept. (AKI) - Osama bin Laden is planning to carry out new, more destructive attacks inside the United States, and there is someone working on this terror plot currently in the US, according to Hamid Mir, the famed Pakistani journalist who obtained the only post-9/11 interviews with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. In an interview quoted on the website of the al-Arabiya television network, Mir spoke about his last trip to Afghanistan and his meeting with al-Qaeda members and Taliban leaders.

In his interview with Al.Arabiya.net, Mir said that the al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters referred to attacks targeting the US-led coalition forces during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which begins on 24 September, and that the al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden was in "good" health during a meeting he had recently with the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Mir also said that bin Laden has assigned a man named Adnan Al-Shukri Juma to carry out a new attack within the US which is intended to be larger than the 11 September, 2001 attacks. According to Mir, Adnan Jumaa has smuggled explosives and nuclear materials into the US through the Mexican border over the last two years and is hiding somewhere in America where the FBI has not been able to locate him.

The Pakistani journalist also gave a brief background on Adnan Jumaa. Born in Saudi Arabia, he moved to the US where he met a group of a Al-Qaeda members in the Al-Farouq mosque in New York in 2000. He then traveled to an Arab state and from there to Pakistan then Afghanistan. He left there two years ago and since then has smuggled nuclear material from Mexico to the US. Jumaa has earned the nickname "Al-Qaeda nuclear whizz" and is tagged to play the same role in a future attack as Mohammed Atta did in the 9/11 attacks.


In March 2003 the FBI announced that it was seeking a link between Adnan and others accused of terroris, saying Adnan Jumaa "or maybe one of his several nicknames" had appeared in intelligence information gathered after the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Western media had reported in earlier times that Adnan Jumaa was a Saudi pilot, but the Saudi Ministry of Interior security spokesman lieutanent Mansour Al-Turki said in a statement to Al-Watan newspaper two months ago that Adnan Jumaa is not a Saudi citizen, he was living in the kingdom until he was eleven years old and left along with his parents, who are not Saudis, twenty years ago.

Adnan Al-Shukri's name has been mentioned in many Western media reports claiming that Al-Qaeda has acquired nuclear technology. The American writer, Paul Williams, in his book " The Al-Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse", says he was among a number of Al-Qaeda members trained for the nuclear technology.

On another issue, Hamid Mir spoke to Alarabiya.net of his last trip to Afghanistan and his meeting with a leader of Taliban named "Khaibar" in Zabul who claimed that 300 Taliban suicide bombers had managed to sneak into Kabul and Jalalabad to carry out attacks against coalition troops during Ramadan.

Mir alleges that there was a meeting between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar several few weeks ago in the mountain area of Zabul where they planned more attacks, "I received this piece of information from one of the Taliban leaders who attended the meeting himself and I met him recently in Afghanistan" Mir said. "He told me that this was the second meeting between the two men since last year and that Bin Laden's health seemed good while he was eating with Mullah Mohammad Omar.

The Pakistani journalist expressed his surprise of the changing situation in Afghanistan; saying that the Taliban had come back to rule some areas and spread their special courts, their special administrations, nothing that even some police officials follow their orders.

Get a Clue Rosie

Rosie: Radical Christians pose Islamofascist threat
O'Donnell maintains on 'The View': 'We are bombing innocent people in other countries'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Rosie O'Donnell, left, on ABC's 'The View' with Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Rosie O'Donnell says "radical" Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

O'Donnell, the newest face on ABC's "The View," yesterday let her feelings fly after co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck noted that militant Islam provides a threat to free people.

"Just a minute," she interrupted. "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."

She had been saying that America was attacked "not by a nation."

Yet, she said, "And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people."

A bewildered co-host, Joy Behar, protested that Christians are not threatening to impose mass murder on Americans.

"There's that difference. This group is threatening to kill us," Behar said.

And Hasselback, appearing surprised, said, "We are not bombing ourselves here in the country."

"No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?" O'Donnell said.

Bloggers erupted.

"Please tell me why Rosie O'overrated Donnell is on TV at all," said kathleenirish. " One of the mysteries of life, like why no talents/low raters like her, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Al Franken still hang around. … God Bless America."

The television show segment launched with O'Donnell reading from President George W. Bush's speech the previous night, where he expressed sorrow that the war on terror has been thrust on America, but also promising to finish it.

Another Internet fan, identified as Michelle, said O'Donnell apparently believes the federal government is a branch of radical Christianity. And, Michelle said, O'Donnell apparently never has heard of World War II "and the innocent civilians that unfortunately died in the struggle against the Nazis."

"Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us," O'Donnell said.

But Michelle suggested perhaps O'Donnell should review where the Taliban trained and plotted.

"We will never bring peace at the hands of war … As a species we have to rise above it," O'Donnell said.

Blogger dcpro said it wasn't anything surprising.

"When you got Rosie sitting at your table, what do you expect?"

"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on," added Chris Norman. "So, Rosie O'Donnell, stand up comic and geopolitical analyst, thinks if we just do nothing except hang our heads and cry, 'Oh, woe is me!', the rest of the world will join together and ride to our rescue? Oh, really. We might get those warm and fuzzy statements of sympathy - maybe. I suppose the liberal plan is. 'We probably deserve whatever we got. Be sad. Do nothing.'"

"Rosie who????" was the terse response from LJS.

"Rosie has got to go. Poor Barbara (Walters), you know she knows she made a terrible mistake. It is laughable," said msh1973.

The Folly of So-Called 'Dialogue'

THE MULLAH IN THE CATHEDRAL
Chuck Colson

The Folly of So-Called 'Dialogue'

Recent events make it clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses great challenges to both American security and global stability. In furtherance of its religiously inspired goals, Iran has funded and armed both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shiite militias in Iraq, fighting Americans. And then, there's Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, which, in the hands of apocalyptic fanatics like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a terrifying prospect.

Given this political context, you would think that, at the very least, we would be wary about anything an Iranian spokesman has to say. And we should also pay careful attention to where he says it from. Unfortunately, that kind of clear thinking is in short supply these days.

It's hard to conclude otherwise if you follow the progress of former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami's current speaking tour of the United States. Khatami, whom Reuters called "the most prominent Iranian to visit the United States . . . in decades," is often called a "moderate," but according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, during his term as president of Iran, "religious minorities-including Jews, Christians, Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Baha'is, dissident Shia Muslims, and others-faced systematic harassment, discrimination, imprisonment, torture, and even execution based on their religious beliefs." Hardly "moderate."

Khatami's U.S. tour is part of a public relations campaign by Tehran. During his visit to Washington, Khatami warned the United States not to threaten Iran. He said that the "distrust" between Washington and Iran made dialogue impossible. A State Department spokesman immediately replied by saying that "the place to start when talking about . . . threats is with [Iranian] President [Ahmadinejad's] threatening to wipe the state of Israel off the map."

But what really offended me the most was that he made these comments in the National Cathedral in Washington, home of the Episcopal diocese of Washington. The Cathedral is especially hallowed ground this week because it was just five years ago this week that Billy Graham, President Bush, and others led the nation in mourning for the victims of September 11. That a spokesman for the biggest sponsor of Islamic terrorism, a nation supplying insurgents to kill American troops today, would be allowed to speak from the same place the week before September 11, 2006-blasphemy.

Are we mad? Why was he allowed to speak there? The purported reason, of course, is promoting dialogue, which is hopelessly naïve. One of Iran's most powerful clerics recently called Iran the "the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty" and "an extension of God." The rest of us live in "utter darkness." How do you "dialogue" with that?

I'll give the Iranians this much: They know that they are in a clash of civilizations. The same can't be said for the canons of the National Cathedral who, because they don't take the truth claims of their own religion seriously, assume the same of the Iranian leadership. Given what we know about Iran, that's dangerous folly.